In my eyes, the “public” can be defined by the usage of the idea of set theory, a foundational concept in mathematics. If we recollect everything of society as a regular set, individual communities or groups with shared hobbies, ideals, or traits can be viewed as subsets within this universal set. Much like elements in a set, every person belongs to a couple of subsets (or groups) and contributes to the identification of each. Intersections among these subsets constitute people or groups with overlapping traits or interests. Thus, defining the “public” in any given context corresponds to identifying a selected subset or aggregate of subsets inside the universal set. The “public” can be defined at various levels of this universal set whether at the level of smaller communities, nations, or one that attempts to encapsulate shared interests at the grand scale.
The tragedy of the commons often surfaces when members of the public are either detached or insufficiently engaged with communal issues. When we have subsets of our society, be they communities, entities, or even lone individuals, leveraging common resources without foreseeing the broader repercussions, what we witness is a “tragedy.” In mathematical terms, it’s reminiscent of isolated elements acting out of pure self-interest without accounting for their interconnectedness to other groups—resulting in the gradual exhaustion or decline of resources in our communal subset. (Note to self: explore the application of game theory in this concept).
On a brighter note, the commons have the potential to be our “solution.” Drawing on my understanding of Harney and Moten’s thoughts, we can develop the idea of a collective approach to disseminating resources and knowledge. In my eyes, this could be akin to building a fresh, intersectional subset, one that actively prioritizes the well-being of the overarching set. Such a synchronized endeavor could, I believe, transform the commons into a tool for innovation, mutual cooperation, and shared affluence.
Drawing upon Toomey and Sweeney’s insights, I’ve come to realize the double-edged nature of technology in this context. Technology has the power to either amplify the tragedy of the commons or usher in innovative solutions and platforms for debate. In today’s digital age, it’s fascinating to me how even virtual spaces have joined the ranks of the “commons.” How we navigate this novel realm will, I think, be instrumental in sculpting the trajectory of public interest.
Lastly, the commons often emerge as a battleground for political and social contest. We can observe that different factions (subsets) within the public (universal shared set), segregated perhaps by financial metrics, ideological beliefs, or other criteria, engage in a tug-of-war for dominance over our shared resources. This power play, from what I sense, often defines the rules governing our shared space, making it an indispensable facet of public participation.
To sum up, the “public” and the “commons” are complicated, overlapping, and dynamic, much like complex sets in mathematics. The commons may be a tragedy if improperly managed, a solution if well managed, and undoubtedly a place of social and political conflict.
